Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
2d 1401
Unpublished Disposition
With regard to plaintiff's claim that he was denied due process, the district
court ruled that plaintiff did not have a property interest in continued
employment and promotion and therefore that he had experienced no loss for
which the Constitution provides a remedy. Although there may be
circumstances in which a "statute, ordinance or institutional regulation" might
create an interest which the Constitution will recognize, Board of Regents v.
Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), Clark v. Whiting, supra, 607 F.2d at 642-43, that is
not the case here. VCU Promotion and Tenure Policies and Procedures
specifically provide that "[t]enure is not guaranteed to any tenure eligible
faculty member." Promotion and Tenure Policies and Procedures p. 9. There
was no de facto tenure. In the face of such a specific mandate to the contrary,
plaintiff cannot claim an entitlement to tenure or promotion.
Plaintiff argues that he had a protected interest in ensuring that the University
It should also be pointed out that, had plaintiff been able to produce evidence of
an entitlement to promotion and tenure amounting to a property interest, the
procedures followed by defendants in terminating the interest did not deny
plaintiff due process of law. The process that is due in a particular circumstance
is dependent upon the nature of the interest at issue. Siu v. Johnson, 748 F.2d
238, 244 (4th Cir.1984). The appropriate procedures for making a tenure
decision "contemplate a subjective, evaluative decisional process by academic
professionals rather than objective fact-finding process by tribunals adapted to
that quite different purpose." Siu v. Johnson, supra, at 244. According to that
standard, plaintiff was provided with the requisite procedural protection
assuming any was necessary.
AFFIRMED.